Is all of Bible history literal history?

[freesoulhope]

How much of bible history am i to take literally? from what part of the blood line, starting from adam and eve leading up to jesus Is actual History?

I feel literal history of the bible starts from abraham, but im not sure. I need to know this, because are decieved Brothers have a truck load of Questions, that i cant anwser on this matter, and my inability to anwser them, makes the bible seem fake(which i dont believe). Im tied of not being able to defend my faith, on matters of bible Authenticy and history.

 

[patg]

freesoulhope:

How much of bible history am i to take literally? from what part of the blood line, starting from adam and eve leading up to jesus Is actual History?

You will get as many answers to this as there are members of this forum and you can do a search here for bible/history and you will recieve references to hundreds, if not thousands, of posts discussing this.

The church actually makes very few definitive statements on the historicity of the bible. One of the most recent statements on biblical interpretation, Dei Verbum (which you can read online), clearly states that the bible is not a history book yet it does contain history:

“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.”

I feel literal history of the bible starts from abraham, but im not sure. I need to know this, because are decieved Brothers have a truck load of Questions, that i cant anwser on this matter, and my inability to anwser them, makes the bible seem fake(which i dont believe). Im tied of not being able to defend my faith, on matters of bible Authenticy and history.

The bible teaches the truth about mankind’s relationship with God and it does this through many different literary forms. To deny that the authors used non-historical stories to teach these truths or that the authors sometimes embellished the “facts” to make a point is to misunderstand the intent and meaning of the words.

There is nothing “fake” about fiction - it can teach truths quite well.

An excellent book which discusses all this is published by Paulist Press and is used in many catholic adult ed classes:

“And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” by Margaret Ralph.

 

[freesoulhope]

patg:

*“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.”/*i]
.

This is what im trying to know , i dont wish to debate with other posters. Im trying to understand, what the various writers of books in the bibe, where trying to express. Which ones are literal and which ones are storys. It matters not to me that the bible isnt a history book. I just want to know the truth.

Im gona read the link you gave me. If you have anymore links, i would be gratefull.

 

[freesoulhope]

I also wish to reaserch the the blood line starting from adam and eve going to jesus. I wish to know how authentic the Bloodline is.

If you have any links specifically on this, i would also be greatfull.

 

[freesoulhope]

The link leads to a bookshop, where poor people cannot enter. do you have any free stuff?